POROSITY EXAMINATION OF DEMINERALIZED DENTIN MATERIAL MEMBRANE AS GUIDED BONE REGENERATION

  • PRATIWI SOESILAWATI Department of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia.
  • YULIATI YULIATI Department of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia.
  • REZKA AJENG PRADHITTA Undergraduated Student, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia.

Abstract

Objective: The human skeleton is one of the body parts, which is able to repair itself from any damage. Bone damages could be caused by trauma, tumors, infections, congenital defects, and also due to surgical procedures. If the bone is not treated well, alveolar bone would lose its volume by 40‑60% within 3 years. Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is a technique using a barrier membrane that is placed into the bone defect to provide bone cells with space intended for bone regeneration to increase bone formation which grows slower than fibrous tissue. The pore size of the barrier membrane is very important to prevent excessive fibrous tissue into the defects site and to facilitate neovascularization and the bone formation. The aims of this study are to determine the porosity of demineralized dentin material membrane (DDMM).


Method: Bovine dentin was conducted through demineralization and freeze-drying. Dentine was cut into a size of 5×5 mm with a thickness of 0.3 mm. Double packaging and sterilization were undertaken using gamma irradiation rays. Membrane porosity was examined through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) examination. SEM micrographs were converted into binary images and further analyzed by ImageJ software.


Results: Microscopic observations and quantitative measurements in this study show that the average pore size of the DDMM sample was 3.4082±0.052 μm with a ratio of 3.3562 μm−3:4602 μm, while the pore size of the Jason membrane sample was 3.9175±0.052 μm with a ratio of 3.8655 μm−3:9695 μm.


Conclusions: The average microporosity size of the samples seen is 3–5 μm. This porosity size is ideal for GBR membranes that could increase cell proliferation and aggregation to defect sites, as well as good permeability, neovascularization, and nutrient transport.

Keywords: Demineralized dentin material membrane, Guided bone regeneration, Porosity

References

1. Kheirallah M, Almeshaly H. Bone graft substitutes for bone defect regeneration. A collective review. Int J Dent Oral Sci 2016;3:247.
2. Ebrahimi M. Bone grafting substitutes in dentistry: General criteria for proper selection and successful application. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2017;3:75-9.
3. Van der Weijden F, Dell’Acqua F, Slot DE. Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: A systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2009;36:1048-58.
4. Sheikh Z, Sima C, Glogauer M. Bone replacement materials and techniques used for achieving vertical alveolar bone augmentation. Materials 2015;8:2953-93.
5. Liu J, Kerns DG. Mechanisms of guided bone regeneration: A review. Open Dent J 2014;8:56-65.
6. van der Stok J. Bone graft substitutes developed for trauma and orthopaedic surgery. Ned Tijdschr Traumachirurgie 2015;23:84.
7. Einhorn TA, Gerstenfeld LC. Fracture healing: Mechanisms and interventions. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2015;11:45.
8. Liu G, Xu G, Gao Z, Liu Z, Xu J, Wang J, et al. Demineralized dentin matrix induces odontoblastic differentiation of dental pulp stem cells. Cells Tissues Organs 2016;201:65-76.
9. Zhang Y, Zhang X, Shi B, Miron RJ. Membranes for guided tissue and bone regeneration. Ann Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;1:10.
10. Dimitriou R, Mataliotakis GI, Calori GM, Giannoudis PV. The role of barrier membranes for guided bone regeneration and restoration of large bone defects: Current experimental and clinical evidence. BMC Med 2012;10:81.
11. Chang SJ, Kuo SM, Liu WT, Niu CC, Lee MW, Wu CS. Gellan gum films for effective guided bone regeneration. J Med Biol Eng 2010;30:99-103.
12. Elgali I, Omar O, Dahlin C, Thomsen P. Guided bone regeneration: Materials and biological mechanisms revisited. Eur J Oral Sci 2017;125:315-37.
13. Bhardwaj N, Kundu SC. Silk fibroin protein and chitosan polyelectrolyte complex porous scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. Carbohydr Polym 2011;85:325-33.
14. Zadpoor AA. Bone tissue regeneration: The role of scaffold geometry. Biomater Sci 2015;3:231-45.
15. Moharamzadeh K, Freeman C, Blackwood K. Processed bovine dentine as a bone substitute. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;46:110-3.
16. Abdelmalak NS, El-Menshawe SF. A new topical fluconazole microsponge loaded hydrogel: Preparation and characterization. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2012;4:460-9.
17. Reddy DB, Patra PK, Divakar K, Reddy BV. Formulation and in vitro studies of carvedilol microspheres with its characterization. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2014;6:329-32.
18. Rao DV, Gigante GE, Cesareo R, Brunetti A, Schiavon N, Akatsuka T, et al. Synchrotron-based XRD from rat bone of different age groups. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2017;74:207-18.
19. Salerno A, Guarnieri D, Iannone M, Zeppetelli S, Netti PA. Effect of micro- and macroporosity of bone tissue three-dimensional poly (epsilon caprolactone) scaffold on human mesenchymal stem cells invasion, proliferation, and differentiation in vitro. Tissue Eng Part A 2010;16:2661-73.
20. Um IW. Demineralized Dentin Matrix (DDM) As a Carrier for Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Proteins (rhBMP-2). InNovel Biomaterials for Regenerative Medicine. Singapore: Springer; 2018. p. 487-99.
21. Van Bael S, Chai YC, Truscello S, Moesen M, Kerckhofs G, Van Oosterwyck H, et al. The effect of pore geometry on the in vitro biological behavior of human periosteum-derived cells seeded on selective laser-melted ti6Al4V bone scaffolds. Acta Biomater 2012;8:2824-34.
Statistics
46 Views | 1 Downloads
Citatons
How to Cite
PRATIWI SOESILAWATI, YULIATI YULIATI, and REZKA AJENG PRADHITTA. “POROSITY EXAMINATION OF DEMINERALIZED DENTIN MATERIAL MEMBRANE AS GUIDED BONE REGENERATION”. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research, Vol. 12, no. 11, Oct. 2019, pp. 163-165 Article Retracted, doi:10.22159/ajpcr.2019.v12i11.35614.
Section
Original Article(s)